Muhammad: The "Banned" Images Blog Free Speech at Risk

Craven Capitulation

The South African paper the "Mail & Guardian" (M&G) recently published a cartoon by Zapiro that depicts Muhammad on a therapist's couch saying: "Other prophets have followers with a sense of humor!" Predictably, Muslims screamed: "blasphemy."

Rather than defending the principle of free speech, the M&G grabbed its ankles and apologized for "the sense of injury it caused many Muslims." (Can you image a newspaper apologizing for the "sense of injury" caused by a cartoon that satirizes financiers and capitalists?)

Said Nic DawesMail the Guardian editor-in-chief:  "No cartoon is as insulting to Islam as the assumption Muslims will react with violence." Except, of course, for this "assumption" -- Muslim arsonists in Pakistan: http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article462796.ece/Prophet-Mohammad-cartoon-angers-SA-Muslims

And then there are the countless "assumptions" of Islamic violence against free speech, well-documented here:  http://muhammadimages.com/mayhem.php

Oh, and then there's this "assumption": September 11, 2001.

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-05-27-mg-statement-on-prophet-muhammad-cartoon

Reject the “Nick”

The American Academy of Pediatrics has reversed itself, and decided after all that maybe it's not a good idea for doctors to engage in "just a little" female genital mutilation. (aka the "nick.")

Apparently, the Academy's bioethics panel tried to justify doctor-assisted mutilation by noting that it's ..."practiced in some countries." Bioethicists -- one of the worst of whom is Arthur Caplan at UPenn -- are typically egalitarians who destroy the best by elevating the worst. Applied to cultures, egalitarianism becomes multiculturalism -- the deathly notion that no culture (including cultural practices and norms) is any better than other cultures.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/health/27brfs-DOCTORSREVER_BRF.html?scp=1&sq=doctors+reverse&st=cse

Whither The New York Times

Under the editorial leadership of the venerable A.M. Rosenthal, the NYT practiced a scrupulous separation of reporting and editorializing. "He once told a reporter who demanded to exercise his rights by marching
in a street demonstration he was assigned to cover: 'OK, the rule is, you can [make ...love to] an elephant if you want to, but if you do you can't cover the circus.' We call that 'the Rosenthal rule.'"

To its detriment, that "rule" is long gone -- and the Times has reached the abyss of nonobjective "journalism."

Consider an article on the *front page* of today's Times -- which purportedly reports the harvesting of rosewood trees in Madagascar. The Times describes the harvesters as "exploiting a political crisis," as "barons" "robbing" the island. The productive lumber companies are described as engaged in "illicit trade" and an "accelerated plunder." And government officials as being unable to "stop the trafficking."

Apparently, the Times is confusing timbering with international piracy and slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._M._Rosenthal

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/world/africa/25madagascar.html?scp=1&sq=tottering+rule&st=cse

Europe Meets Ivy Starnes

The "Europe that protects" (who -- the producers? No -- the looters and moochers with a "cradle-to-grave safety net") is in a crisis. If Europe had taken the time to grasp what caused the destruction of the Twentieth Century Motors Company, it would not be in a crisis. Instead, it put Ivy Starnes in charge.

The Times, however, offers a different explanation for the crisis -- that Europeans are living too long and having too few babies. Said one Italian, "deeply pessimistic about his pension: 'It’s going to go belly-up because no one will be around to fill the pension coffers . . . It’s not just me; this country has no future.'"

Here, though, is the fundamental crisis (and choice) that Europe faces: "In the name of all the producers who had kept you alive and received your death ultimatums in payment, I now answer you with a single ultimatum of our own: Our work or your guns. You can choose either; you can't have both." (Galt)

I was tempted to conclude with the following: Apparently, Obama believes that America's producers will find a way "somehow" to create wealth in spite of our ever-growing statism.

However, that statement gives Obama too much credit for having a human motivation. It is becoming clear that Obama is America's first James Taggart president. He does *not* want economic progress, growth, personal achievement, happiness. His desire is for Americans to "stop wanting anything." (Toohey)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/world/europe/23europe.html?scp=1&sq=crisis%20threatens&st=cse

The Darkness of “Blasphemy” Grows

In response to Facebook campaigns such as "Everybody Draw Mohammad Day,"* Islamic leaders in Pakistan have censored all of Facebook.

It's the Enlightenment or Islam. And the Enlightenment is losing.

* For more, see here: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Muhammad-The-Banned-Images/174415065908?ref=ts

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/world/asia/20briefs-Pakistan.html?scp=1&sq=pakistan%20court&st=cse

Turtles and Terrorists

What do they have in common? That they are both considered worthy of sympathy, rights, and protection (at great expense) -- as opposed to, say, wealth creators such as Goldman Sachs and Microsoft.

On the front page of today's NYT is an article about a sea turtle ("Sea Turtle No. 15" -- who knew sea turtles had numbers?) whose habitat is supposedly threatened by the oil spill. The article carries on in a manner that used to be reserved for individuals who have risen from the slums. (Don't attack me as a sea turtle hater. They're fun to ride in the ocean, and they make good soup.)

And in the same issue of the NYT, a story about how Britain refuses to deport to Pakistan an Al Qaeda operative -- a terrorist who Britain itself says is a "serious and contintuing threat" to the country. Why? Because they are worried that the terrorist might be mistreated in Pakistan. (This from a country that bans the talk show host Michael Savage from entry because he spreads "hate speech," i.e., he stridently criticizes radical Islam.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/science/earth/19turtle.html?scp=1&sq=sea%20turtle&st=cse

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/world/europe/19britain.html?scp=1&sq=deportation%20case&st=cse

Bedbugs in New York City

That's not the title of the latest B-movie horror film. It refers to the bedbug epidemic in the City, including posh sections like the Upper East Side. (Apparently, it's not dirt that attracts the bugs, but rather human blood.)

Up until the 70s, the bugs had been virtually eliminated from the City, so much so that doctors had not been taught to identify the symptoms, and exterminators had not been trained to combat an infestation.

Guess which pesticide, widely in use until the 70's, is credited with eradicating the blood-sucking pests? Here's a hint: It was banned in 1972, and was also effective at eliminating malaria.

http://nymag.com/news/features/65733/

U.S. Complicit in Killing the Spirit of Kira

Here is what our government (and the U.N.) is appeasing in Iran.

"I know that there will be a day that you and I will hold hangs again." This is from a wife to her husband who has been imprisoned in Iran for "political dissent."

There are countless such "deeply personal letters to and from" such spouses.

"The 35th day since your arrest had ended calmly and the clock is racing toward the moment that you and I see each other. I welcome even that small comfort."

"Every night I stared up at the grayish-blue sky of our city, looking for your eyes, thinking that your blindfold had been removed for your half-hour outdoor stroll and you too were staring into the sky."

From a jailed husband to his wife: "I am proud of you for being such a wonderful wife . . . I wish I had all your letters here in prison."

And from a wife: "Your absence hurt deeply when the New Year began. I had to hide in the room several times so that no one would see tears streaming down my cheeks; so that they would not think that I was breaking. For I am not breaking."

For more on the spirit-destroying nature of totalitarianism, read Rand's _We The Living_.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/weekinreview/16fathi.html?scp=1&sq=to%20reza&st=cse

Support for the Swedish Cartoonist Lars Vilks

As I wrote elsewhere: The Facebook-based campaign "'Everybody Draw Mohammad Day' is a quintessentially American protest in defense of independence -- in this case, independence of thought and expression. It is a brave show of support for those who have been terrorized by Islam's spiritual leaders (see Iran) and by its killers(see Iran, and sundry foot soldiers.) The grassroots movement is a heartening expression of: Don't Tread on Me."

If you want to participate in that protest for free speech, I suggest some themed cartoons -- "Everybody Draw Mohammad as a Dog." This would be in honor of Lars Vilks, the "Swedish artist who angered Muslims by depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a dog [, and who] was assaulted Tuesday while giving a university lecture about the limits of artistic freedom." (HT jihadwatch)

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=100000226125708

Handwringing: “U.S. Approval To Kill a Cleric Causes Unease”

Anwar al-Awlaki is a Mulsim witch doctor who has, from his hideout in Yemen, declared war on the U.S. The C.I.A. quite properly put him on its "kill list." (Though it is bizarre that such information has been made public. "Hey Germany, we're landing tommorrow... at Normandy.")

The tsk-tskers are having a field day. Don't do it, they say, because he'll become a martyr, which will only "amplify his violent message." Fine. But he'll still be dead.

True to form, the NYT never names al-Awlaki what he is: a *Muslim* or *Islamic* cleric. Of course, the Times is not shy about using the words "Tea Party" whenever there's so much as an allegation of violence or name calling.

The bigger issue here is why, by the same reasoning, the U.S. does not place Iran on its "kill list." It's engaged in the same Islamic-driven war on America (and on Israel), with the only difference being that Iran has lots more fire power.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/world/14awlaki.html?hp